OZA JENKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. AND CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jenkins appeals a trial court order denying her motion to disqualify and granting defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that once a judge grants a disqualification order, even inadvertently, the judge lacks jurisdiction to reconsider or entertain further motions in the case, rendering the subsequent dismissal order void.
A trial judge who enters an order disqualifying himself lacks jurisdiction to reconsider that decision or entertain any other motions, regardless of whether the disqualification was granted in error. Any order entered after disqualification is void.
[1] A judge who enters an order disqualifying himself or herself is barred from further participation in the case.
[2] Once a trial judge enters an order of disqualification, he or she may not reconsider the decision to disqualify, even if entered in error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A judge who enters an order disqualifying himself or herself is barred from further participation in the case.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that disqualification prevents any further judicial action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJenkins filed a complaint against Motorola and Cingular in Miami-Dade Circuit Court on January 21, 2004. The case was removed to federal court and rem…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Void Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Plaintiff, Oza Jenkins (“Jenkins”), appeals from the trial court’s Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in denying a motion to disqualify after having previously granted a motion disqualifying himself. We find that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to deny the Motion to Disqualify and reverse.
Jenkins filed a Complaint and Demand for Non-Jury Trial against defendants, Motorola, Inc. and Cingular Wireless LLC (“Motorola” and “Cingular”), on January 21, 2004, in the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The case was removed to federal court and was later remanded back to the circuit court.
The record on appeal shows that on July 1, 2004, after remand, the circuit court trial judge received in his chambers Jenkins’ Motion to Disqualify. Written in longhand across the top of the typed motion, in blue ink, is the word “granted,” the trial judge’s signature, and the date “7/6/04.” The motion was filed for record with the Clerk of the Circuit Court on July 7, 2004.
On July 8, 2004, Motorola and Cingular filed their Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.
On July 28, 2004, the trial court heard Motorola’s and Cingular’s Motion to Dismiss (a hearing at which Jenkins failed to appear). The trial judge denied Jenkins’ Motion to Disqualify as legally insufficient and granted the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. The judge stated that he had no recollection of granting the July 1, 2004 Motion to Disqualify. He stated that he did not intend to grant the motion as it was legally insufficient.
Additionally, he thought the motion was related to another case filed by Ms. Jenkins and not the present case.
A judge who enters an order disqualifying himself or herself is barred from further participation in the case. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(f).
Once a trial judge enters an order of disqualification, he or she may not reconsider the decision to disqualify. State v. Schack, 617 So. 2d 832, 833-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
A trial judge may not reconsider an order of disqualification even if the trial judge entered the order in error. In Deberry v. Ward, 625 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), a case factually similar to the present case, the trial judge granted a motion to disqualify. Upon rehearing, he reinstated himself noting that he had made a clerical mistake and did not intend to sign the order to disqualify. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed finding that once the order to disqualify had been signed, even though in error, the trial judge had no authority to entertain any other motions including a motion for rehearing. An order entered by a trial judge who has been disqualified is void. See Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Once the trial judge in this action, although inadvertently, granted on July 6, 2004, Jenkins’ Motion to Disqualify, he no longer had jurisdiction to entertain any other motion.
Therefore, the July 29, 2004 Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is void.1 Accord ingly, we reverse and remand for the case to be reassigned for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
. This Court makes no determination as to the merits of Motorola’s and Cingular’s Mo tion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berube v. State, 978 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…o disqualify was deemed granted under the rule, the post-conviction court had no authority to hear and determine Mr. Berube’s motion for postconviction relief. See Goolsby v. State, 914 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 911 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Berube’s postconviction motion, and we remand for further proceedings on the motion. On remand, the case shall be reassigned to a different judge. Reversed and remanded with ins…
-
Goolsby v. State, 914 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…in error. Deberry v. Ward, 625 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). As a result, any order entered simultaneously with the order of recusal, as well as any subsequent orders she enters in that case, are void and have no effect. Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 911 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see Davis v. State, 849 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Haverty v. State, 830 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Thomas v. State, 756 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In denying Goolsby a new hearing on his rule 3.850 motion,…
-
Ross v. Ross, 77 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…v. State, 914 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Sherrod v. Berg, 865 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Collado v. Collado, 858 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Moreover, an order entered by a disqualified trial judge is void. Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 911 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citing Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)). The exception to the disqualification rule announced in Fischer provides “[w]hen a judge has heard the testimony and arguments and rendered a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. The Honorable Larry Schack, 617 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Rolf E. Westerstrom v. Redcliff Props., Inc., 508 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Stimpson Computing Scale Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Francis X. Knuck, 508 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Gulf Props. OF Ala., Inc. v. Jerrie B. Bower, 625 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Deberry v. The Honorable C. Lavon Ward, 625 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)